Author
Topic: How to recognize legal/illegal use? (Read 17216 times)

Trust me. The IS license allows a buyer to use the license for multiple clients, for any number of projects. Try reading the whole clause next time instead of just underlining the part you think backs you up:"Only you are permitted to use the Content, although you may transfer files containing Content or Permitted Derivative Works to your clients, printers, or ISP for the purpose of reproduction for Permitted Uses, provided that such parties shall have no further or additional rights to use the Content and cannot access or extract it from any file you provide."

So, this is an example of clear, unquestionable illegal use, and they didn't do anything about it. I have reported images above the max web size, nothing.

I have found images the exact same size of unwatermarked small thumbs from 123RF (the only site I saw with that specific size). It looks like a huge coincidence that someone buys an image and downsize it exatcly to their size. I reported those, no answer - this one isn't much of a surprise.

And the list goes on. Maybe I'm the only one whose reports have been unfruitful, but I have the impression sites really don't care, unless it is something big.

So, this is an example of clear, unquestionable illegal use, and they didn't do anything about it. I have reported images above the max web size, nothing.

I have found images the exact same size of unwatermarked small thumbs from 123RF (the only site I saw with that specific size). It looks like a huge coincidence that someone buys an image and downsize it exatcly to their size. I reported those, no answer - this one isn't much of a surprise.

And the list goes on. Maybe I'm the only one whose reports have been unfruitful, but I have the impression sites really don't care, unless it is something big.

Madelaide,

I started this thread with the subject "How to recognize legal/illegal use?"

In many replies I got the answer, that we can't do anything. Some of the reasons were: 1. The agreements of the agencies allow multiple copying, sublicensing etc.2. The agencies do nothing against misuse, even when I have reported misuse.3. I can't recognize illegal use.4. I don't want to spend time on that.etc.

My answers are:

1.The agreements are different. We must know them. FT: The designer is allowed sublicensing to 1 client per purchased license. SS: Allows 3 (with some complicated exceptions and time limits, that I don't want to repeat here).IS: There is a discussion between sjlocke an me. We will see later.DT: ...123RF: ......

2.I haven't the experience how reports are handled by the agencies (but they want to earn money by selling licenses and they don't earn money by allowing illegal use).My first report to FT (Germany) was answered by a preliminary answer. The user of the image isn't a client of FT. They have given this case to FT (US), who are responsible. Maybe this turns to a first class funeral (as we say in German), but I have great patience and will write them again after a while.My second report to FT (2011-08-24) wasn't answered so far. But that was hard stuff with multiple illegal use.

Because of Google's image search something is changing, therefore the agencies will have to act against misuse. Look at the DT Message Board (2011-08-11). They have a "New feature: Report misusage - DMCA notification" (http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_28308). That's one step to handle misuse - agency and artists together.

Some important things are described in that message, here are three: "Educate yourself: know what your images can be used for.""In some cases the images are used properly, in other cases the license is incorrect.""We don't want this to be transformed into a witch-hunt."

I fully agree. I don't want to harass legitimate users. Therefore this subject: How to recognize legal/illegal use?

3.That's the problem. Therefore we should put together the criteria by which we can detect illegal use. Some were already described in the replies.

The agreements of the agencies are different. It could be a good idea, that those of you repliers, who have special knowledge of the terms of an agency, would describe what a misuse is under the terms of that agency. Could this be a way?

4.Great. If I were a designer and wanted to do my work without paying for licenses, I would ask: "Where are your images?"

Logged

RacePhoto

« Reply #53 on: September 05, 2011, 21:03 »

0

ingwio I think I'm lost, but thanks for trying.

I didn't see where you said you knew where the images came from, because part was that we don't know where the images came from. That's why I asked, how you could identify the agency if there was no credit, no tracking and you didn't know who licensed it. Then you said, all of yours came from FT with attribution. I followed the links and still couldn't tell where they were from. (that's my problem)

So if you write to all the people using your images and don't know which were legal or not or where they came from, all you will do is alienate the legal uses and do nothing to the illegal and nothing changes. So what's the point? Making customers unhappy?

Yes, it would be nice to know who licensed every download, it's not done. When we get to page four or page forty of this banter, it will still be the same. It's not done and can't be done, because of the record keeping involved. Agencies do not track nor do they disclose who the buyer is. Any digital watermark can be removed.

Using the new image search I have found hundreds of illegal uses of my images. Far too many for me to be able to do anything about it unless it is some big company worth going after. I would imagine that the stock agencies are getting inundated with illegal uses and just haven't got the resourses to chase them all up.

Sorry to go off Topic: "How to recognize legal/illegal use?",,, just wanted to point out how naive (silly) i was to think that when some 'agencies' offer a low % cut-back to the contributor/photographer (ie: me) that the rest of the money was partially going to protect my work too, apart from profits and other costs.

Going exclusive normally means you get a bigger cut of the money from your work being sold, which unless sold at a higher price too, means that's less money is going to the agency... which is less money for them to 'use/waste' time on hunting down illegal use.

( I bring up this post, since a previous post mentioned, forget having your work defended unless your an exclusive,,, although that does make sense too since it's harder to track down the source/agency )

Also want to bring up a point about google-images-search and tineye etc... these site don't track every image on the web, so illegal use might be greater, or lets be positive, your/our work might be out their more than is found. Also am pretty sure that stock is being used for Printed media that doesn't appear on the web, let alone to be found by any image-finding-site.

RacePhoto

I would imagine that the stock agencies are getting inundated with illegal uses and just haven't got the resourses to chase them all up.

Indeed, but even before the Google tool, all my contacts with the sites (FT, IS, DT, StockXpert, 123) resulted in nothing. Only when I contacted infractors myself, were images removed.

As Chris S pointed out, and you also and let me re-state it in my own words. The agents take 80-85% of the commission on downloads and in return we get NOTHING, no protection, no trying to block illegal use? Do I have that right?

Good God and people still try to get friends involved in selling on MicroStock sites after we get crapped on like this?

1.The agreements are different. We must know them. FT: The designer is allowed sublicensing to 1 client per purchased license. SS: Allows 3 (with some complicated exceptions and time limits, that I don't want to repeat here).IS: There is a discussion between sjlocke an me. We will see later.DT: ...123RF: ......

So if you're independent, the first hurdle you face is finding out which site the image was originally licensed from (unless the image has only ever been with one agency).Then work out the license for that agency.Then work out whether the use is valid for the agency it was purchased from.Then you wonder whether the agency will back you up (if they can be bothered, usually the most you'll get is a purchase for the license that was missed, or the abuser might take the image down. This after several weeks or months, depending on the agency and how quickly they take it up.)Or pay a fortune to hire a lawyer specialising in international law to chase them down.Or you could just write a polite email to the website owner yourself; but better be sure they are an abuser. You can't just go writing to everyone who uses your file asking to see their license. (Unless you know the file has never been sold.)

Then there are all the Russian sites flogging or giving away stock images en masse. Only today, I happened to be looking at the webalyser stats for a website I maintain for a local campaign group. An incredible number of visits were apparently coming from .ru sites. Checking a few (c10) at random, they were either image distribution sites (whom I presume constantly spider the web looking for images to steal) [the others looked like an identical forum with multiple URIs].

So, yes, recognising illegal use is very difficult.The only real solution is either never to post any images anywhere or only with Getty, who I hear go after abusers like the Wrath of Khan.

I don't think so: no Rocinante (only a bike, but skinny), no Dulcinea in mind, no Sancho in sight (do you want that job?), can't speak Spanish. There are too few similarities .

No, I think I'm more related to some of the enemies of Don Quixote - the windmills. I sold my last (and only) windmill about 20 years ago, built about 1860, 25 m in height, 1 m thick walls on the ground floor, without sails (lost by a strong storm years before and not lost by Don Quixote). I sold it to - you won't believe - a photographer.

But there is an interesting thing about the author Miguel de Cervantes and his work I read in the German Wikipedia. I don't know wether it's true but it's similar to the discussion we have in this thread.

Quote

from Wikipedia - Don Quijote (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote)Translation:The work was a bestseller immediately after its initial release in early 1605 - a few weeks later, three pirate editions appeared.

Please, excuse me. I'm a little out of topic today. But I wanted to answer the funny part of your statements. I think we should go on with this thread. As you can see in the statistics, there have been about 1700 views since 2011-08-21, not just a little. It seems to be interesting to many.

I don't think so: no Rocinante (only a bike, but skinny), no Dulcinea in mind, no Sancho in sight (do you want that job?), can't speak Spanish. There are too few similarities .

No, I think I'm more related to some of the enemies of Don Quixote - the windmills. I sold my last (and only) windmill about 20 years ago, built about 1860, 25 m in height, 1 m thick walls on the ground floor, without sails (lost by a strong storm years before and not lost by Don Quixote). I sold it to - you won't believe - a photographer.

But there is an interesting thing about the author Miguel de Cervantes and his work I read in the German Wikipedia. I don't know wether it's true but it's similar to the discussion we have in this thread.

Quote

from Wikipedia - Don Quijote (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Quijote)Translation:The work was a bestseller immediately after its initial release in early 1605 - a few weeks later, three pirate editions appeared.

Please, excuse me. I'm a little out of topic today. But I wanted to answer the funny part of your statements. I think we should go on with this thread. As you can see in the statistics, there have been about 1700 views since 2011-08-21, not just a little. It seems to be interesting to many.

I'll try to be more serious tomorrow - I promise.

Yeah, I can try too, but I'd be lying if I promised.

You are getting into why we have Copy Right Laws because of the ease at which people could suddenly copy books when movable type was invented. Imagine the same for photo copies which was some kind of a threat, and now digital, where nothing is safe. That's why Sony and the big ones tried to block videtape recorders. funny we have CDs and DVDs and both of those technologies will be short lived. 78 RPM records may have lasted longer than 45s? Now we have electronic and don't need things that scratch and break and we can make our own back-up copies. The world is changing and the laws need to change.

In case you haven't noticed, my latest rant (pitch, mission, soap box speech?) is similar to your tilting at windmills. DMCA does nothing. It gains us no damages, it stops no one, because if they get caught the penalty is, "Oops, I'll take it down" the problem goes away. They don't even need to apologize. Why bother when it's a toothless dog that doesn't bark?

You might go back to the base question and hurdle. Multiple sites, selling the identical images, no tracking, no way to track, and I'm adding, even if they did, we can't get restoration or recovery. So what's the use? Write DMCAs, send notes, stop them, that's fine, but the agencies are not going to help. If you sell the same product at 25 different sites, why should they pursue infringement when they don't know where it came from?

Trust me. The IS license allows a buyer to use the license for multiple clients, for any number of projects. Try reading the whole clause next time instead of just underlining the part you think backs you up:"Only you are permitted to use the Content, although you may transfer files containing Content or Permitted Derivative Works to your clients, printers, or ISP for the purpose of reproduction for Permitted Uses, provided that such parties shall have no further or additional rights to use the Content and cannot access or extract it from any file you provide."

"Only you are permitted to use the Content, although you may transfer files containing Content or Permitted Derivative Works to your clients, printers, or ISP for the purpose of reproduction for Permitted Uses, provided that such parties shall have no further or additional rights to use the Content and cannot access or extract it from any file you provide."

Yes, you're right.

Plus I have no idea how you can make sure you client 'cannot access or extract it from any file you provide'. Just about any file (word, pdf, powerpoint, etc.) can be screendumped and the photo saved out in Photoshop (etc) and the file would have to be provided as an entity in e.g. an html web page or IIRC e.g. InDesign, so that's just an unpoliceable rule.

"Only you are permitted to use the Content, although you may transfer files containing Content or Permitted Derivative Works to your clients, printers, or ISP for the purpose of reproduction for Permitted Uses, provided that such parties shall have no further or additional rights to use the Content and cannot access or extract it from any file you provide."

Yes, you're right.

Plus I have no idea how you can make sure you client 'cannot access or extract it from any file you provide'. Just about any file (word, pdf, powerpoint, etc.) can be screendumped and the photo saved out in Photoshop (etc) and the file would have to be provided as an entity in e.g. an html web page or IIRC e.g. InDesign, so that's just an unpoliceable rule.

ShadySue,thank you. This gives a chance to play on words. I don't know how to solve the described problem with the agreements of IS. But your signature in your posts gives an answer: "There is a crack in everything - that's how the light gets in". Let's ask sjlocke, he's a crack (in the German meaning of "expert") of the agreements of IS - I hope he will let the light get in .

ShadySue,thank you. This gives a chance to play on words. I don't know how to solve the described problem with the agreements of IS. But your signature in your posts gives an answer: "There is a crack in everything - that's how the light gets in". Let's ask sjlocke, he's a crack (in the German meaning of "expert") of the agreements of IS - I hope he will let the light get in .

You'll notice that on all IS legalese, there is lots of wiggle room and 'scope for interpretation' for iStock and for buyers, but none for contributors. You'll often see if someone brings up a suspected misuse of a legally bought image that the rules give a lot of scope for disagreement on the forums.

For example, in the Standard Content Agreement, Clause 4 is:Prohibited Uses. You may not ...6. use the Content in a fashion that is considered by iStockphoto (acting reasonably) as or under applicable law is considered pornographic, obscene, immoral, infringing, defamatory or libelous in nature, or that would be reasonably likely to bring any person or property reflected in the Content into disrepute;7. use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour;

The issue with (6) being that wnat one person considers 'reasonable' others would consider 'beyond the pale'.The issue with (7) is that many, many in-uses feature a model apparently 'personally endorsing' a product, for example a photo of the model with a text saying, e.g. "My X is better now that I'm using product Y" or somesuch.

You're not going to get any further on the forums.Your only recourse is to contact contributor relations/support on the site from which the misused file was been bought or stolen and see if they'll take it on for you. Don't hold your breath.Or as I said before, hire an international IP/Copyright lawyer and mortgage your grandchildren.

Sorry to go off Topic: "How to recognize legal/illegal use?",,, just wanted to point out how naive (silly) i was to think that when some 'agencies' offer a low % cut-back to the contributor/photographer (ie: me) that the rest of the money was partially going to protect my work too, apart from profits and other costs.

Some agencies promise to do so in their blog. I think it's only to get some more new photographers. A while ago I decided to stop working with some agencies (low earners). One reason was: they didn't use watermarks in their previews or the watermarks were very small and deleting them would be very easy for a thief.

Going exclusive normally means you get a bigger cut of the money from your work being sold, which unless sold at a higher price too, means that's less money is going to the agency... which is less money for them to 'use/waste' time on hunting down illegal use.

( I bring up this post, since a previous post mentioned, forget having your work defended unless your an exclusive,,, although that does make sense too since it's harder to track down the source/agency )

If you upload an image to more than one agency it may be difficult to recognize where the misused instance of the image comes from. Which agency would be responsable?.

That's no problem if you are an exclusive photographer - there is only one agency.

I don't want to go exclusive. There are other ways I decided to go (and will strictly go in future):

The image is uploaded to one agency only and declared as a part-exclusive image (if possible/allowed).

The agreements of an agency (i.e. SS) doesn't allow part-exclusivity at all. They only get non-exclusive images, but no other agency will get these images.

If an image is uploaded as an exclusive image to an agency, the agreements don't allow uploading a similar image to other agencies. In this case all agencies get non-exclusive, similar, but unique images.

In result: all agencies have unique images, it's possible to recognize which agency is responsable for an instance of an image.

Also want to bring up a point about google-images-search and tineye etc... these site don't track every image on the web, so illegal use might be greater, or lets be positive, your/our work might be out their more than is found. Also am pretty sure that stock is being used for Printed media that doesn't appear on the web, let alone to be found by any image-finding-site.

That's my experience too. Google found more than 20 instances of an image. Tineye found none.

I think in future there will be found more instances. It's only a matter of time before the databases of search engines are more complete.

On the other hand, we must recognize that we only see the tip of the iceberg today. Perhaps the iceberg is growing under the water level.

...You are getting into why we have Copy Right Laws because of the ease at which people could suddenly copy books when movable type was invented. Imagine the same for photo copies which was some kind of a threat, and now digital, where nothing is safe. That's why Sony and the big ones tried to block videtape recorders. funny we have CDs and DVDs and both of those technologies will be short lived. 78 RPM records may have lasted longer than 45s? Now we have electronic and don't need things that scratch and break and we can make our own back-up copies. The world is changing and the laws need to change.

I think there is a small error in your thought. We don't have the Copyright Laws because movable letters were invented. We have these laws, because there were people in the past who fought for their intellectual property.

We must fight against the illegal use of images, otherwise the impression might arise that copyright laws (for photographers) are unnecessary and the laws would change, but not for the better (for the photographers).

RacePhoto

...You are getting into why we have Copy Right Laws because of the ease at which people could suddenly copy books when movable type was invented. Imagine the same for photo copies which was some kind of a threat, and now digital, where nothing is safe. That's why Sony and the big ones tried to block videtape recorders. funny we have CDs and DVDs and both of those technologies will be short lived. 78 RPM records may have lasted longer than 45s? Now we have electronic and don't need things that scratch and break and we can make our own back-up copies. The world is changing and the laws need to change.

I think there is a small error in your thought. We don't have the Copyright Laws because movable letters were invented. We have these laws, because there were people in the past who fought for their intellectual property.

We must fight against the illegal use of images, otherwise the impression might arise that copyright laws (for photographers) are unnecessary and the laws would change, but not for the better (for the photographers).

OK so much for history and education. Try this on for size.

The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1709, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books. Over time other uses such as translations and derivative works were made subject to copyright and copyright now covers a wide range of works, including maps, performances, paintings, photographs, sound recordings, motion pictures and computer programs.

I asked an attorney last night and he said, HA the court system does nothing even when I took them the evidence. We have to file and take the time to go to court, and there's no money in it. Why should artists have to take the case to court for a criminal offense when with other crimes the state and Government prosecutes.

Somewhere in there I see two reasons why it's a waste of effort. No recovery and even the governments won't help do something.

Frustrating as all heck and I'd like some laws that protect our work, but, read again.

DMCA and even registration is a toothless dog that doesn't even bark!

So how does recognizing illegal use do anything to help? We can find illegal use now and it's useless. Should we and the agencies spend more money and time, feeding and caring for that toothless dog, and get nothing out of it but some dog poop?

the known history of copyright and copyright laws is about 1600 years elder than described in the English article at Wikipedia. Please read the more detailed article at the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschichte_des_Urheberrechts). But the dates don't matter, we live in 2011.

There are different laws in US and Germany today. Therefore I said in a previous post, in the first step I would hire an attorney to fight against illegal use in Germany. In Germany we use the so called "Abmahnung" when a copyright infringement happened. I don't want to explain "Abmahnung" here. There is a detailed article in German on the German Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung) and a very short and uncomplete article in English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abmahnung).

The result in short: You must be sure, that there is a clear copyright infringement. The attorney you hired writes the "Abmahnung" to the illegal user. The illegal user has to pay the attorney and your damage. If he doesn't, the attorney will go to the court. If there is a clear copyright infringement, there is no risc for you, the illegal user will have to pay. And because of the costs of the attorney and the court it will be a little more than a dog poop - I promise you .

I don't want to have a risc, when it's necessary to use the "Abmahnung", therefore I opened this thread: How to recognize legal/illegal use?

PS:You would like some laws that protect our work? Then we must work for that - in unions, political etc. That's what I said in one of my first posts in this thread. Do you think, the agencies will do that for us? Never!

But if you would have that laws sometime in future, you would get back to the subject of this thread: How to recognize legal/illegal use?